User:Logical Premise

I used to be wikiwise, but that makes me a wikifool. And at least this time I know my way, instead of being someone's tool.

NPOV is some sort of hilarious, pie-in-the-sky fantasy that some people have that everything can be written about from the point of view of someone who is a strictly neutral observer.

It's completely logical in many cases. Things where scientific evidence is clear; where the preponderance of history is firm; where the overwhelming consensus from anyone you ask is clear. An article on the Moon Landings is not NPOV because it doesn't mention the idea they may be a hoax: anyone who believes the moon landings are a hoax is bat-fuck insane. Catering to the wishes of flat-earthers, creationists, Scientologists, numerologists, and anyone who doesn't believe that the Kirby Silver Surfer is the best Silver Surfer ever is just catering to the frothing at the mouth crowd.

No, I have no problem with that kind of NPOV. But how can you have NPOV over events where there isn't a clear set of scientific evidence, such as with stem cells? What if the preponderance of history is one of dueling claims?

You seriously expect a pack of power-tripping lunatics, teenagers, bored housewives, Aspies and detailed-fixated dilantantes to solve the greatest controversies in the history of the world by finding a neutral viewpoint everyone agree on?

Thus, my rule: If NPOV is in dispute in an article, I do not edit it. I do not get involved in it's AfD, I don't find references for it, and I certainly stay completely the fuck away from it's talk page.

Well, children, this is going to be difficult. I'm going to list out the appropiate policy page and then my translation.

• No personal attacks - Don't you dare insult anyone who is an admin, or is tight with one, or who knows how to cry to AN/I. But if one of those people is rude to you, or even harasses you, anything you say to try to point this situation out is also a personal attack and you will be banned. I recommend that you interact with people as little as possibl and when you do, keep in mind EACH interaction is a chance for something to go wrong.
• Be civil - Civility is what they will break your head open with at the ArbCom hearing when, after being baited, taunted, and wheeled against for weeks, you finally let go with a single insult. I recommend that if you find yourself wanting to say something uncivil, you simply stop editing that article altogether. Forever. It isn't worth it.
• Assume good faith - Assume the idiots here are all out to backstab you, set you up, or get you in trouble. No one will bother to AGF with you, so the further along you get the idea in your head that anything besides article writing is bad, the safer you'll be!
• Seek dispute resolution - Assume if you use any form of DR to be banned and chatted about breezily on WR.
• Don't be a fanatic - Only veteran wiki-warriors, admins, and their assorted lickspittles are allowed to be fanatical.
• Ask an admin rather than get into trouble yourself - riiight. Admin = bad.

There's a lot of this garbage and more, and yet, this is not what the fuck should be expected out of editors. Here's my own list

• Remember you are here to write an encyclopedia, not run a social club, participate in parlement, or be a fucking clerk. The further away you get from article writing, the more unhappy you will be and the more likely you are to get into an altercation.
• Follow the four steps: Write about things that are verifiable, always produce references, wikify wherever you can, and go after only CLEAR and obvious vandalism.
• Use the lists of articles that need help if you want something to do. It's FAR more productive than being in a WikiProject.